Did Judas receive Holy Communion? And was he ordained a priest?

The implications of this question are significant, for if Judas departed before Christ said, 'Do this,' was he ever a priest or a bishop?

Jun 19, 2025

Image: Fr Lawrence Lew OP. As partners with The WM Review, who are Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. Check out how far we have got with Fr Coleridge’s Life of our Life series.

The implications of this question are significant, for if Judas departed before Christ said, 'Do this,' was he ever a priest or a bishop?

Editor’s Notes

In this part, Fr. Coleridge tells us…

How the common opinion that Judas received Communion is refuted by the Gospel sequence.
That St John’s narrative deliberately shows Judas left before the institution of the Eucharist.
Why the “morsel” could not possibly refer to the Blessed Sacrament.

He shows us that our Lord acted with mercy and precision—sending Judas away before that most holy mystery.

An important corollary of this is that, if Coleridge is correct, then Judas was never a priest. The Council of Trent teaches the following in both chapter and canon:

… he offered his body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father, and, under the same signs, gave them to partake of to the disciples (whom he then established as priests of the New Covenant) and ordered them and their successors in the priesthood to offer, saying: “Do this in remembrance of me”, etc., as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. (DH 1740)

Can. 2. If anyone says that by the words “Do this in remembrance of me” Christ did not establish the apostles as priests or that he did not order that they and other priests should offer his body and blood, let him be anathema. (DH 1752)

If this is so, it would have implications for some of the arguments that posit parallels between Judas and the wicked bishops seen in the history of the Church.

This seems to be an open question in the Church, on which Catholics can take different positions. What do you think is the case?

Let us know your reasons in the comments.

On the morsel given to Judas by our Blessed Lord

before the departure of the former from the Cenacle

Passiontide, Vol. II

Note to Chapter V—The Departure of Judas
Burns and Oates, London, 1890

The widespread opinion on Judas’ communion

The opinion, that Judas received the Holy Communion from the hands of our Blessed Lord, along with the other Apostles, on the night of Holy Thursday, has been so common in the Church, and is supported by the authority of so many great names, that, although it cannot be said to be universal or general, still it may seem fitting that something should be said of the reasons which induce us to depart from it in the present work, which does not in general profess to deal even shortly with controversies of the kind, except by mentioning in passing what may seem necessary on such subjects for the information of the reader, without however examining in detail the authorities and arguments on the other side.

It is not our purpose to do this here. But it may be useful to explain the grounds on which the opinion of which we speak has been apparently founded, apart from the question of the authority of this or that great writer.

The sequence of events

The question, if it is so to be considered, is a very simple one.

It is in truth whether a careful study of the Harmony of the Gospels, rightly conducted, leads to the belief that Judas left the Cenacle, as St. John informs us, before or after the institution of the Blessed Sacrament. The incident to which we refer is placed where it is in our narrative for the very reason that it seems to us undoubtedly to have happened before that institution, and because the statement of St. John requires that the departure of Judas from the Cenacle was immediately consequent on his reception from the hand of our Lord of the morsel in question.

The whole narrative to which it belongs is continuous—the washing of the feet, the remark about the traitor, the declaration by our Lord that he should be one of the Twelve, the confusion and perplexity which ensued among them, the questioning of our Lord by them one by one, ‘Lord, is it I?’ our Lord’s general answer, then the question asked by St. John at the request of St. Peter, the answer of our Lord, and the giving of the morsel to Judas, with the instruction, ‘What thou dost, do quickly!’ and his exit—all hangs together, so that there seems to be no break between the incidents from first to last.

Moreover, the washing of the feet has always been considered as an early incident in the evening, and as having been intended, partly at least, as a preparation of the souls of the Apostles for the coming Banquet of the Blessed Sacrament. It is therefore inconvenient, to say the least, to suppose that the Blessed Sacrament had been instituted before the washing began.

The institution of the Eucharist and the silence of the Gospels

We are obliged to speak of the date of this institution as unfixed by any positive statement of any one of the Evangelists, for a reason which has often been mentioned in these pages.

That reason is that the only one of the four who gives anything like a detailed and consecutive account of the proceedings of that evening, does not mention among them the institution itself, although it is evident that he more than once alludes to it, and that he has it before his mind as at least one of the most important incidents of the evening. For it had already been mentioned by three other Evangelists, and, indeed, is one of the very few incidents which they do mention.

As far as Judas is concerned, the other Evangelists say nothing about his presence or absence in connection with the institution, and, if we had nothing but their narratives before us, we might even conclude that Judas went with our Lord and the other Apostles to the Garden of Gethsemani.

The improbability of the opinion, and why it spread

It is needless to say—what has an important bearing on the opinion of which we speak—that there is not a trace in the Evangelists of the supposition, which is almost necessary if this opinion be true, that Judas received the Blessed Sacrament apart from the rest of the Apostles, at a time when they were engaged in an animated and excited conversation as to who it was that was to be the traitor—the answer to that question being furnished secretly to St. John by our Lord by His action in communicating Judas.

It is far from probable that the opinion of which we speak would have prevailed so much in the Church, merely from the silence of the three first Evangelists as to any departure of Judas from the company of our Lord. He must have left the rest at some time, and at an interval before the consummation of his treason, long enough to give time for the arrangements that were required for the collection of the large band with whom he afterwards proceeded to the Garden.

We should naturally allow a considerable space for this, but the Evangelists are absolutely silent on the matter. St. John, however, comes in here, as he does elsewhere, to fill up the gap in our information, and he tells us the incident of the question put by himself at the request of St. Peter to our Blessed: ‘Lord: Lord, who is it?’ and our Lord’s answer to him that it was he to whom He Himself would presently ‘reach bread dipped.’

St. John goes on, as we know, to tell us that He did this, apparently at once, by dipping a piece of bread in broth and giving it to Judas, saying, ‘What thou dost, do quickly,’ and he tells us further that Judas receiving the morsel, Satan entered into him, and that he went out immediately. The opinion of which we are speaking, about the Communion of Judas, seems to be founded on this incident, and it would be almost impossible to enumerate the preachers and writers who have applied the text in this way, especially in sermons on the subject of bad Communions, the words seeming to furnish so apt an illustration of the misery and wickedness of such profanations.

If this passage did not exist in the text of St. John, it is quite possible that Judas might have been quoted by some as an instance of such a profanation, but his case might not have been so conspicuous or seemed to be so pointedly put before us in Sacred Scripture. It would have been inferred from the silence of the Evangelists as to his having left the Cenacle before the others. It is the fact that we are told, that after the morsel Satan entered into him, that makes him the commonly quoted example of a sacrilegious Communion.

Misreading the context of St John

But if we examine the text of St. John we shall find this to be an example of the mistake which sometimes is made by forgetting the context in which a certain statement is found.

It is clear that here St. John is careful, as he is all through, to mention a detail valuable in itself, which he found omitted in the histories of the Passion which had preceded his own. It had not been stated by any one of those who preceded him, how and when it was that Judas had been separated from the other Apostles, although this was a matter obviously requiring explanation.

It must have been tolerably early in the night, for the preparations for the arrest of our Lord must have taken some time, and if Judas had been missed after our Lord had uttered His prediction that one of the Twelve was to betray Him, it would at once have given the alarm to the rest, unless our Lord had taken the charitable precaution of sending him away in the manner He did, so as not to cause any suspicion.

This is therefore a most necessary and valuable addition to the history, explaining to us what would otherwise be inexplicable, and it tells us among other things, that Judas was sent forth in the manner which we know, and that this was at a time of the night when it was natural for the Apostles to think that he had some business to transact and abundant time in which to do it. It therefore could not have been very late.

Why the morsel could not have been the Blessed Sacrament

Further it may be observed that the whole narrative of St. John seems entirely to forbid the supposition that what our Lord gave to Judas was the Blessed Sacrament.

If it had been so, it would have been altogether out of place in the story of St. John, who of set purpose omits any account at all of the institution and celebration of the Blessed Eucharist, after which, if Judas had been present, he would have communicated in his turn with the rest. On this supposition, St. John must have omitted altogether the Communion of the other Apostles and mentioned that of Judas.

Moreover, the sop or morsel which was given to Judas was given on purpose to mark him out from the rest. Our Lord did what He did for this especial purpose. How would it have been possible to distinguish one of the Twelve from the rest by giving him what was given to all equally, and, as it is natural to suppose, at the same time? The Blessed Sacrament was given to Peter and John and all the rest. How could our Lord say that the traitor was to be known by His giving It to him?

St John’s text possibly intended to exclude the error

The truth seems more likely to be in the other direction. The other Evangelists had left the question that might be asked, as to the Communion or non-Communion of the traitor, unsolved, except that they had not mentioned when he left the company, though they imply that he must have left it.

St. John may have had many reasons, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, for the addition to the history with which we are concerned. One of them may probably have been directly to exclude the opinion which we are discussing. He may have distinctly wished that the Church should know, not only that Judas left the Cenacle, but that he left it before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist.

And he may have mentioned the incident of the sop or morsel given to Judas by our Lord expressly for the purpose of excluding the mistake that it had anything to do with the Blessed Sacrament, by insisting on all the circumstances of the facts which so directly exclude the supposition.

Where are we told that our Lord administered the Blessed Sacrament of His Body and Blood by using a soppet or morsel dipped in any other dish? Where are we told that it was in the midst of the conversation about the betrayal, with no form or ceremony to indicate the sacred character of the rite? Finally, where are we told that our Blessed Lord, in speaking of the Blessed Sacrament, would have spoken of It as ‘a morsel of bread dipped’?

The circumstances which St. John has added as to this incident are certainly such as to make it very difficult to see in it an administration of Holy Communion.

Inconsistency of the alternative views

Again, as it is clear that what was given to Judas was not given at the same time to the rest, it must, if it was the Blessed Sacrament, have been given to him before the general Communion of all, or after.

If it was after, then Judas must have been communicated twice by our Lord.

If before, we have to suppose that, without saying what He was doing, our Blessed Lord gave the Blessed Sacrament to the traitor, unwarned, unprepared, and apparently as a mark of mere friendship.

It is clear that our Lord washed the feet of the disciples with some kind of solemnity and grave ceremonial, such as befitted the holy significance of the rite. The giving of Holy Communion to an Apostle, or to the whole band of the Apostles, would surely, it must be thought, have been done in at least as solemn a manner as the Lavanda—and it was the first time that any one had received It.

Is it conceivable, that in giving the traitor, even as a last means of recalling him to his duty, the Blessed Sacrament of His Body and Blood, our Lord would do it without any ceremony or ritual which might move his heart and excite his reverence?

Coleridge on the Council of Trent and the institution of the other sacraments

Chapter X—The Institution of the Blessed Sacrament

It has come down to us from ancient tradition, and the Council of Trent thought the fact so important, for its theological aspect, that it put it on record in its authoritative declarations, that besides the institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, which our Lord delivered to the Apostles at this time, He also instituted at least one other, if not more, of the Seven Sacraments of the Church.

The Council says that He then made the Apostles Priests of the New Testament. This truth is, in fact, conveyed sufficiently to religious-minded readers, in the injunction which St. Paul and the Evangelists record, that they were to do this in memory or commemoration of our Lord. The action which they were to do was the sacrificial action of offering to God, in another way, but to the same intent and purpose, the same Sacrifice which He had offered. In order to do this they must have the power of sacrifice, and in order to have this power they must have received it from Him.

This therefore is a truth which cannot be left out of sight in any Catholic account of these proceedings in the Cenacle, though it was just one of that class of truths which we have so often spoken of, as not falling within the province of the Gospels to put on record, save so far as it is sufficiently recorded by the words of our Lord Himself.

It is also natural to suppose that if the Apostles were then and there ordained priests, this must have been done by our Lord with some simple ceremony and prayer, the foundation and germ of the holy ritual which the Church has always used, and which we suppose to have included the laying on of hands, among other things, of which we hear often in the Acts and Epistles—though the simple imposition of hands may have been used for the collating of other offices besides the priesthood, some distinguishing words or forms being used on the several occasions.

The mention of the priesthood in the Council of Trent is not certainly meant to exclude the supposition that other orders may have been conferred, and other sacraments instituted at the same time, and we are thus led naturally to the statements of the contemplatives on this subject.

What do you think? Did Judas receive the Blessed Sacrament—and was he ordained a priest?